The Hamilton Inventory for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Cognitive Debriefing Study of the Clinician-based Component

Packham, Tara; MacDermid, Joy C.; Henry, James; Bain, James R.

doi:10.1016/j.jht.2011.09.007

« Previous Next »Journal of Hand Therapy
Volume 25, Issue 1 , Pages 97-112, January 2012

The Hamilton Inventory for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Cognitive Debriefing Study of the Clinician-based Component

School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

McMaster Hand, Arm and Nerve (MacHANd) Research Network, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Neurosciences and Trauma, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

McMaster Hand, Arm and Nerve (MacHANd) Research Network, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

McMaster Hand, Arm and Nerve (MacHANd) Research Network, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Study Design

Descriptive.

Introduction

The Hamilton Inventory for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (HI-CRPS) is a multidisciplinary assessment tool under development.

Purpose of the Study

This study examined the assessment practices, beliefs and preferences of health care professionals working with CRPS to inform the content and structure of the clinician-based portion of the HI-CRPS (CB-HI-CRPS), as well as refine the user manual.

Methods

Semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with health care professionals from a spectrum of disciplines working with CRPS. Assessment practices and scaling preferences for 15 assessment concepts were collected, relating directly to items on the CB-HI-CRPS. Interviews were transcribed and coded with emergent themes.

Results

Participants reported using the concepts from the CB-HI-CRPS 85.2% of the time. Physicians and nurses preferred present/absent judgements, while therapists used none/mild/moderate/severe scaling. Emerging themes highlighted assessment values, beliefs about CRPS, professional roles, and knowledge translation.

Conclusions

Lack of uniformity in terminology and assessment behaviours underscores the need for clear scoring frameworks and standardized assessment instructions to improve reliability across the proposed users of the HI-CRPS.